Vote Selling

[ubs]

Victus wrote

If I thought it would help another human being in genuine need (e.g., a starving child), I'd probably do it for free.

Agreed. I think it's more shocking that there are people for whom I would not kick a puppy to save.

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

Mostly it says that they're a sadist. I'm not sure it says anything about their morality, per se.

Victus wrote

How so? I don't get any money out of the hypothetical arrangement.

According to the scenario you outlined, you get a million bucks. For kicking a puppy in the face.

Obviously, you don't care who it is that is promising to give you a mil for kicking a puppy in the face, nor how he or she would supposedly benefit by having you perform this action for one million dollars.

Victus wrote

Nope, I'm giving Irr shit for...

1) Not having even minimally consistent principles (i.e., being guided entirely by his emotions).

2) Insofar as this last exchange represents Irr's principles (refusing to kick a puppy in order to possibly save thousands of poor, starving children from a slow, painful death), having terrible, indefensible principles.

Irr likes to berate people for not caring about the poor as much as he does. The puppy-kicking hypothetical was merely meant to showcase how much Irr doesn't actually care about other human beings: given the chance to help some of the worst off in the world, likely saving their lives, Irr won't even suffer the emotional trauma of kicking a puppy. Because he doesn't actually care all that much.

You're giving me shit for not sharing your values. That's OK. I like my values, which is why they're mine.

Victus wrote

If I thought it would help another human being in genuine need (e.g., a starving child), I'd probably do it for free.

Sure. Because that's how they solve the problem of world hunger in Victus World, a world, frankly, I want no part of.

[Smellyoldgit]

I'd keep my vote, sell the puppy and kick a libertarian in the face for free.

[Victus]

Argh. I had this 95% responded to, then my browser crashed. Damn you free market interwebs!!!

ubs wrote

I'm very interested in hearing how this would work. How would more markets have prevented the bail outs.

The bailouts were, pretty much by definition a democratic (i.e., not-market) action.

ubs wrote

First I would say that candidates are subject to selective forces far beyond popular interest.

This is true, but only in the same way that saying an organisms' genomes aren't only influenced by interaction/competition with other living organisms (e.g., by things like random, infrequent natural disasters). It's true, but it seems like the former is so drastically more important than the latter that worrying about these 'other factors' seems silly.

ubs wrote

If it were the case that voters were the purchases, more libertarian candidates would get press time.

True, if the median voter were a libertarian. Unfortunately, he's not. The media panders to what people want to see in the same way that other for-profit enterprises pander to their customers. Libertarian ideas and the candidates that advocate them just aren't that popular with viewers or voters.

ubs wrote

The candidates submitted for voter approval are first culled by the heirs of thinkers whose only real skill is hanging on to their unearned wealth.

Not culled that effectively, given the longevity of Ron Paul. Still, while Dr. No might be popular in things like straw polls, exposure to actual voters tends to go poorly. In the 2008 primaries, he finished in the top three only four times, and never finished first. Certainly not what you would expect if 1) his ideas were popular and 2) he were the only one advocating them in the field.

People like advocating liberty in the abstract, but once you start narrowing it down to specifics, people drop off the bandwagon pretty quickly.

ubs wrote

Secondly, I would be cautious out judging the general populace using RA in it's current form, as your sample. This has become a refuge for statists, and I think the larger population is much more receptive to change than this board would lead you to believe.

Ok, but by how much? When asked, the public endorse some pretty wacky economic theories. Even things like increasing the minimum wage are popular with >80% of the population. And that ~80% is the proportion that want it increased, the number the want it abolished is, I would speculate, <10%.

Economic literacy, and its consistent application, are rare in the population.

ubs wrote

But I wait to learn about the use of markets to keep check on things like ambitious generals and judges on the take.

As always, competition is the surest way of keeping service providers honest and effective. Courts can (or at least have been in the past) provided in a competitive manner. With the military, we might just be stuck. The problems are the way they are because that's the way the public wants them.

"But that's horrible!", you're thinking.

Yep.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

According to the scenario you outlined, you get a million bucks. For kicking a puppy in the face.

Actually, no. In the scenario I outlined, you got a million bucks for kicking a puppy in the face.

Irr wrote

Obviously, you don't care who it is that is promising to give you a mil for kicking a puppy in the face, nor how he or she would supposedly benefit by having you perform this action for one million dollars.

I struggle to imagine a scenario where the damage I do to the universe could outweigh the benefits I could do with $1,000,000. Can you think of one? Is the dog Buddha, or something?

Irr wrote

You're giving me shit for not sharing your values. That's OK. I like my values, which is why they're mine.

Your values where dogs are more important than starving, dying children? Those values?

Irr wrote

Sure. Because that's how they solve the problem of world hunger in Victus World, a world, frankly, I want no part of.

Indeed, in Victus World dead animals can, in fact, be fed to living humans so that they don't starve to death. I'm sure wherever you are, starving people merely feed on your excess smug.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Victus, do you believe that the government should invest in the private sector, to assist in its growth, bearing in mind it is struggling to grow itself, and its struggle effects all areas public and private?

[Victus]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

Victus, do you believe that the government should invest in the private sector, to assist in its growth, bearing in mind it is struggling to grow itself, and its struggle effects all areas public and private?

As a general rule, no.

[Sternwallow]

Victus wrote

...
So where's the problem?

Problem 1 for the buyer: people lie, take the money and vote as they would have without the money.

Problem 2 for the people: the buyer's (or the candidate who hired him) interests are unknown and very unlikely to match those of his constituents. Thus the people are not being represented. The difference is in exact proportion to the number of bought votes.

If the voter ID was not verified, as would be the case for the type of vote buying that involved the buyer taking the place of the voter, then the voter pool would increase by many deceased and fictional people, many of whom would wish not to be bothered with anything having to do with the living any more.

[Victus]

Sternwallow wrote

Problem 1 for the buyer: people lie, take the money and vote as they would have without the money.

See token system; once they exchange their token, they lose the ability to vote. All that is needed is a medium of exchange.

Stern wrote

Problem 2 for the people: the buyer's (or the candidate who hired him) interests are unknown and very unlikely to match those of his constituents.

That sounds like more of a complaint about democracy than about vote-selling. Politicians and the people they employ don't inherently relinquish their own self-interest when they run for office - how they get their votes doesn't obviously make a difference.

Besides, if a buyer or a candidate have interests or goals that run substantially counter to those of a prospective seller, they can refuse to sell their vote to them. If they're worried that their vote will be re-sold to the evil party they're afraid of they can just stipulate a contract forbidding resale to that party, or if they don't trust the buyer to hold up the contract, they can just refuse to sell in the first place.

Stern wrote

Thus the people are not being represented. The difference is in exact proportion to the number of bought votes.

If a financial incentive puts more tokens (votes) into play than without those incentives, then the electorate is being more fully represented. This is true, even if someone chooses, "I don't care, but this guy seems credible enough to make my decision for me" as their option.

Stern wrote

If the voter ID was not verified, as would be the case for the type of vote buying that involved the buyer taking the place of the voter, then the voter pool would increase by many deceased and fictional people, many of whom would wish not to be bothered with anything having to do with the living any more.

See the token system. Totally fictional persons could only be created by 1) bureaucratic error (administering tokens to people who never existed) and 2) deliberate fraud (people creating counterfeit voter identification and/or counterfeit tokens) - both of which are just inherent problems with democracy, not with vote selling.

Deceased people could be a problem, but they're a problem now to the extent that the information isn't updated in time for the elections (i.e., they are still registered voters). A simple solution would be to distribute vote tokens with only a relatively short lead-time to the election. In 2008, about 2.5 million people died in the US. Suppose tokens get distributed a month ahead of time - that's ~200,000 dead people who got tokens, only a fraction of whom were likely alive long or in any physical condition to sell their votes. That's only 0.15% of the population spread across the whole country, hardly a deal-breaker even if you assume that 1) all those votes were sold and 2) they were all sold to the same side.

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

Actually, no. In the scenario I outlined, you got a million bucks for kicking a puppy in the face.

From you. In the scenario that you outlined, you offered me a million bucks to kick a puppy in the face and I declined the offer:

Now, are you going to take your million bucks and make a dent in world hunger with it? Or are you going to insist that I appease your bloodlust and kick a puppy in the face first?

Victus wrote

I struggle to imagine a scenario where the damage I do to the universe could outweigh the benefits I could do with $1,000,000. Can you think of one? Is the dog Buddha, or something?

And I struggle to imagine a scenario in which kicking a puppy in the face aids anyone.

Victus wrote

Your values where dogs are more important than starving, dying children? Those values?

Those aren't my values, and I don't have a million bucks. You still do, under your own scenario. My turning down your million bucks in no way impedes you from feeding starving, dying children. Are you gonna? Or must a puppy suffer serious injury first? Why?

Victus wrote

Indeed, in Victus World dead animals can, in fact, be fed to living humans so that they don't starve to death. I'm sure wherever you are, starving people merely feed on your excess smug.

They're not going to live on your copious bullshit, either. If you have a million bucks that I declined to take on the terms that you offered it, there is still nothing preventing you from doing what I, obviously, cannot.

[ubs]

Victus wrote

Argh. I had this 95% responded to, then my browser crashed. Damn you free market interwebs!!!

Been there many times

Victus wrote

The bailouts were, pretty much by definition a democratic (i.e., not-market) action.

Obama was anti bailout until elected, so no. It was a product of a system that had gone out of kilter, with politicians and judges more beholden to the few monied than to the integrity of property rights.

Victus wrote

This is true, but only in the same way that saying an organisms' genomes aren't only influenced by interaction/competition with other living organisms (e.g., by things like random, infrequent natural disasters). It's true, but it seems like the former is so drastically more important than the latter that worrying about these 'other factors' seems silly.

That's disingenuous Victus. Corruption is now insignificant and unstoppable as an earthquake? Why even bother with Libertarianism if your real answer is nihilism?

Victus wrote

True, if the median voter were a libertarian. Unfortunately, he's not. The media panders to what people want to see in the same way that other for-profit enterprises pander to their customers. Libertarian ideas and the candidates that advocate them just aren't that popular with viewers or voters.

I think what they are - like atheists - is unprofitable for people seeking power. I think most liberals are more fiscally conservative than the official spin and most Republicans more socially liberal than the caricature.

Victus wrote

Not culled that effectively, given the longevity of Ron Paul. Still, while Dr. No might be popular in things like straw polls, exposure to actual voters tends to go poorly. In the 2008 primaries, he finished in the top three only four times, and never finished first. Certainly not what you would expect if 1) his ideas were popular and 2) he were the only one advocating them in the field.

People like advocating liberty in the abstract, but once you start narrowing it down to specifics, people drop off the bandwagon pretty quickly.

Again, I think media manipulation has had a bigger roll in that than anything else. The public opposes the wars. He's the only available option.


But back to my original question...

Implicit in the remark that more markets will do a better job of correcting corruption than democracy is that more fiscal activity can cure our current system but you haven't really shown how that would work. More markets would still rely on judiciously enforced property rights and civil liberties.

I stand by my original statement. Democracy is like the bill counter at the ATM. Flawed as it is, it offers the only non violent means of prolonging the integrity of a government and we have no means of doing it indefinitely.

[Irreligious]

ubs wrote

Obama was anti bailout until elected....

From the NYT, published 9/28/08:

Obama Says Bailout Should Include 4 Conditions

Senator Barack Obama this afternoon urged Treasury and Federal Reserve officials to include four conditions that he and other Democrats are seeking in the proposed $700 billion federal bailout for financial firms – though he stopped short of saying he would vote against the bailout if his terms were not met.

It doesn't sound like then Senator Obama was anti-bailout.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Victus wrote

As a general rule, no.

AAAh, we must disagree here. I have been wondering for a long while whilst governments can only splash monies around the public sector in the UK. Germany, France and many other nations have invested in massive scientific and industrial projects, that would not be classed as necassarily a public service. Nasa must have made fortunes as well as spent fortunes too, ( I know Nasa may not have made a profit but it does put people on the moon etc). So why shouldn't goverments look to invest their / our monies in things that can create wealth, as well as supply services?????? No better time to do this than now.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

From you. In the scenario that you outlined, you offered me a million bucks to kick a puppy in the face and I declined the offer:


Now, are you going to take your million bucks and make a dent in world hunger with it? Or are you going to insist that I appease your bloodlust and kick a puppy in the face first?

Suppose I said I was going to bury the money in my yard if you didn't take the deal. Would that change your answer?

Irr wrote

And I struggle to imagine a scenario in which kicking a puppy in the face aids anyone.

I just offered you one.

Irr wrote

Those aren't my values, and I don't have a million bucks.

But you would, if you took the deal. So why don't you?

Irr wrote

You still do, under your own scenario. My turning down your million bucks in no way impedes you from feeding starving, dying children. Are you gonna? Or must a puppy suffer serious injury first? Why?

Maybe I just want to see a puppy suffer serious injury.

Irr wrote

They're not going to live on your copious bullshit, either. If you have a million bucks that I declined to take on the terms that you offered it, there is still nothing preventing you from doing what I, obviously, cannot.

In the scenario, I obviously don't care about the poor, otherwise I would have given them the money. At the end of the day, you turned down helping starving children for the sake of signaling that you care about dogs. Now you're scrambling to signal that you still care about children, too.

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

Maybe I just want to see a puppy suffer serious injury.

Well, there you go. And, apparently, that puppy's suffering is worth $1,000,000 to you.